11354360 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

Ex Parte Overby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 2014

11354360 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/354,360 02/15/2006 Linwood H. Overby JR. RSW920060014US1 (235) 7036 46320 CRGO TAW 7590 05/30/2014 EXAMINER STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 CROMPTON, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER BOCA RATON, EL 33434 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2014 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LINWOOD H. OVERBY, JR. and MARK T. WRIGHT Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to predictive generation of a security network protocol configuration. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A security services implementation protocol configuration data processing computer hardware system comprising: a platform specific configuration builder configured to produce a platform specific configuration of a security services protocol implementation; a set of topology descriptions; and, a configuration tool, coupled to the set of network topology descriptions, the tool comprising program code enabled to configure settings for the security services protocol implementation corresponding to a selected one of the topology descriptions.1 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Snay US 6,282,678 B1 Aug. 28, 2001 1 We note that independent claim 1 lacks the proper antecedent basis for "the set of network topology descriptions" which are previously introduced as "a set of topology descriptions." We leave it to the Examiner to clarify this in any further prosecution. 2 Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 Brown US 2002/0188701 A1 Dec. 12, 2002 Davis US 2005/0076228 A1 Apr. 7, 2005 Grebus US 2006/0002388 A1 Jan. 5, 2006 Reilly US 6,996,510 B1 Feb. 7, 2006 Satkunanathan US 2006/0129804 A1 Jun. 15, 2006 Edmondson US 7,191,229 B2 Mar. 13, 2007 Newstadt US 2007/0107043 A1 May 10, 2007 Jordan US 2008/0216006 A1 Sep. 4, 2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, further in view of Jordan. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, further in view of Edmondson. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, in view of Edmondson, further in view of Satkunanathan. Claims 5, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, further in view of Snay. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, further in view of Reilly. Claims 10, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, in view of Edmondson, in view of Reilly, further in view of Satkunanathan. 3 Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 Claims 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordan, in view of Edmondson, in view of Reilly, in view of Satkunanathan, further in view of Grebus. Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordon, in view of Edmondson, in view of Reilly, in view of Satkunanathan, in view of Grebus, further in view of Davis. Claims 15 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Newstadt, in view of Jordon, in view of Edmondson, in view of Reilly, further in view of Snay. Appellants seek our review of the above rejections. ANALYSIS Appellants maintain claims 2, 7, 9, 18, 19, and 26 stand or fall together with independent claim 1. (App. Br. 9). Appellants present arguments to the rejection of independent claim 1. (App. Br. 9-16). Appellants rely upon the same arguments with respect to each of the additional rejections and maintain that the additional references do not cure the argued deficiency. (App. Br. 16-22). Therefore, we decide the appeal based upon representative independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellants contend that the independent claim 1 refers to "a set of network topology descriptions" which is referred to in Appellants’ Specification at paragraph [0023] and is known to those skilled in the art to 4 Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 refer to the shape of the network. (App. Br. 9-11). Appellants contend that the Examiner's reliance upon paragraph [0031] of the Jordan reference fails to teach a “set of network topology descriptions.” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that the service topologies of the Jordan reference does not consider the distinction with the network topologies recited in independent claim 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner's identification that the "‘shape of the network’" is not recited in the claim language and Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language does not provide the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants have presented three separate definitions of “network topology”(undated), but have not provided any indication of what the definitions were at the relevant time of the claimed invention. Additionally, the Examiner provides a definition of “network topology,” dated 2001. Therefore, we accept the Examiner's definition which evidences the interpretation at the time of Appellants’ invention. We additionally note that Appellants’ second definition is similar to the Examiner's definition of a "logical" topology. We further note that the language of independent claim 1 does not necessarily limit the claimed invention to any specific computing or communications networks thereby further evidencing a broad, yet reasonable interpretation of the claim terminology. (See also Ans. 34-35). The Examiner further maintains that the network topology descriptions lean towards a definition of a logical topology where the Jordan reference selects a desired service topology and selection of different topologies which describes how the network works. (Ans. 35). We find the 5 Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 Examiner's interpretation to be reasonable in light of the broad claim language and adopt the Examiner's rationale as our own. Appellants further contend that the Examiner has not provided some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. (App. Br. 13-14). We disagree with Appellants and find Examiner has provided the required line of reasoning, but that Appellants do not agree with the line of reasoning. (Ans. 4-7, 35-36). Appellants further contend that the Examiner has not properly characterized the differences in the invention and the Brown and Newstadt references. (App. Br. 14-16). The Examiner further responds to Appellants’ contention in the Examiner’s responsive arguments. (Ans. 36-37). We agree with the Examiner and find that the Examiner's line of reasoning is clear. Appellants further contend that the configuration tool is inextricably tied to the topology descriptions. (App. Br. 15). We disagree with Appellants’ characterization and find that the claimed configuration tool is merely recited as "coupled to the set of network topology descriptions." We find the Examiner has addressed the invention as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 9 and 18 which Appellants have elected to group with claim 1. We additionally sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 10-17, and 19-26 for which Appellants have not provided separate arguments for patentability. 6 Appeal 2011-010153 Application 11/354,360 CONCLUSION OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-26 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-26 are sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED gvw 7